This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I've been recently sent a message that I made an edit to the page called 'Legend'. This is part of the message I got: 'Favonian (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)'
I'm telling the truth when I say that I haven't editted this page. I've never seen the page before and I couldn't find out what I had supposedly editted. I was sent a message that my edit had been reverted or removed as it did not appear constructive
I don't have a wikipedia account, so if the pages needed to be signed in to edit, I couldn't have done that. I'm hoping that I have just been wrongly accused and haven't been hacked.
I know this isn't you who sent this, but I also got another message about 'North Bromsgrove High School' that I vandalised the page. I could find out what I had written and it was 'what a big headed fool haha SPJ' after someone's name. The user who sent me that was Mephistophelian. 'Mephtalk 12:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)'
I'm really sorry about the trouble I may have caused, but I really haven't done these edits. Please could you look into it for me? Thank you for taking the time to read this and maybe believe me.
109.157.1.66 ( talk) 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Do something. 2.83.65.9 is vandalizing S.L. Benfica page for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCorruption brigade ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2.83.65.9's biased post is still there. I guess you don't care about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Truth3r ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. He will change IP address to keep vandalizing SL Benfica page! :)
I see you have given him a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.45.77.82#February_2012
Obviously he hasn't heeded that warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Luxembourg&diff=prev&oldid=479692611
Not to be a rat here, but feel free to block him. He's all yours. Mudkip3DS ( talk) 19:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's one for ya. It is an educational IP, 137.164.227.135 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Made this edit [1] 2 days after receiving their latest level 4 warning.-- Racerx11 ( talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what consensus was reached here and therefore why the page was moved. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see you blocked an IP for inappropriate edit summaries on a variety of boxing articles. Thanks for getting involved. Why did you decide to revert the IP's edits? It seems to be a dispute about formatting and linking.-- Jahalive ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have unprotected Vitali Klitschko - no need for that right now, I think. UkBoxen either uses proxies or IPs geolocated to around 95.141.192.0/20, 188.40.0.0/16, 178.98.0.0/16, 178.105.0.0/16, 31.111.0.0/18, thus it is relatively straightforward to issue a short-term rangeblock (ranges not busy, this tool helps). Regards. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hope you like coffee because I don't!!! Hobblington ( talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
I was recently reprimanded by you regarding a modification of the article on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
The problem is that my addition is entirely correct. Yet you consider it vandalism.
My last modificaton was entirely formal and free from personal opinion. Thus fitting to the guidelines of any Encyclopedia.
Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is related to for example Leopold II of Belgium who was personally responsible for very large genocides in Congo during the 19th century.
Since a few hundred years back, all the royal houses of Europe have submitted to the Pope of Rome, the head of the Vatican City state.
Both the Vatican itself and the Royal houses have successfully used the method of giving an outer false image of charity and good-will, while promoting much more sinister and twisted principles in the silence behind the scenes.
I myself as origially Swedish and you my fellow Dane are victims of the same group of internationalist organization which have been working for hundreds of years to destroy independent nations and their constitutions.
Now it is almost complete and we are supposed to rejoice at "the return of the king", in a new forced multi-cultural Babylonian society under the flag of the UN, where indeed, "big brother sees you".
I urge you to wake up and repent.
Please do not consider this vandalism, it is simply an objective opinion based on many years of experience and research.
Kind regards Kristofer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.180.81 ( talk) 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
==== Unfortunately modern history description is so revised and so mutilated that it´s difficult to find proof for many of the most logical and actual happenings.
I will just quote the following, it´s for you. I hope to set something in motion somewhere
I have legalized robbery, called it belief I have run with the money, I have hid like a thief Re-written history with armies and my crooks Invented memories, I did burn all the books
{Refrain} And I can still hear his laughter And I can still hear his song The man's too big The man's too strong
Matk Knopfler, Dire Straits
Thank you ==== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.180.81 ( talk) 15:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
reading further on old talk page, maybe I should have posted here; anyway, fyi:
Alarbus ( talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! You disambiguated Madrigal to Madrigal (Trecento) at Giovanni Dondi dell'Orologio, and you may well have been right to do so. I'd purposely left it ambiguous because the madrigals in question (and his ballate too) were in a collection of poems, thus unlikely to have been musical settings and probably better considered as Madrigal (poetry). But that article has no mention at all of the 14th century Italian poetic madrigal (most of the other forms we think of as musical, such as the ballata and the frottola, were also poetic forms, btw). It's a bit of a mess, really. Any ideas on how best to sort it out? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
in Father's Day. I have no idea of how I managed to bork the text in that way. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The talk page is locked. The article is locked. How can I discuss? I am writing from Imperial College, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.14.199 ( talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Any disruptive edits from ICL to this particular article are invariably by this banned user. Mathsci ( talk) 01:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Good day Favonian. Could you monitor the IP editting on Loriga, I believe the edit reverts and claims of vandalism are a continuation of the POV editing that occurred in 2007. I will post a request for elaboration on the subject (per 2012) to see if there is any contradictory statements. User:Septrya in 2007, among others, prooved interference from a user in 2007, and the interjections and reverts seem to follow a pattern. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) ( talk) 15:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize, just a new user at wikipedia and I was contributing to the article not vandalizing, all of a sudden it asked me to 'reflist' which I am not familiar with and It ended up deleting every section ( Monkelese ( talk) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 7 March 2012
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:VirtualBox#Spamming allegation. Fleet Command ( talk) 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why not to block for 1.5 to 3 years. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking at ANI a little bit ago, as I sometimes do, my own dim lightbulb came on when I saw yet another complaint about an admin named Fastily... and I realized that I OWE YOU ONE INCREDIBLY HUGE APOLOGY for this rant a couple of weeks ago. [2] Inexplicably, or maybe idiotically, I had the two of you confused, and being annoyed about that one fairly trivial matter, my judgment was disastrously clouded. I suspect that you were saying to yourself all along there, "What did I ever do to him?" The answer is, NOTHING. I was totally in the wrong with that one. I'll eat pretty much any humble pie you want to serve. :( ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Infinitesimal means infinitely small. It makes no sense to say "infinitesimally small". I've undone your undoing of my edit. 109.157.129.2 ( talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi F., Your actions to my ip address issue appear to of sorted it, Thanks Mdann52 ( talk) 13:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is your arm getting tired yet from playing Whac-A-Mole with that 92.vandal? You're gonna wear out your mallet! -- Racerx11 ( talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
VC has known it was copyvio since October, I've rev/del'd all but the first sentence. Dougweller ( talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I sent this to a website. Will it do?
to wikipedia
This user that u have warned for vandalizing, has created a silly article, Maoamermaoamer. I dont think that hes okay for wikipedia. Thanks! Yash t 101 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Two for and one against, and you close it with the comment "no consensus"? Please enlighten me. Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this needs to be turned back into a redirect - it had been a redirect for years until someone gutted Medes in January and added it to this. The material was restored to Medes. We also have an edit warrior on both claiming it was a Kurdish dynasty. Dougweller ( talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't even remember how I ended up there, but reading one passage got me cross-eyed. It turns out a now-banned editor's sockpuppet had added this change and I think the addition was out of place. I'm tired enough I dare not touch it, but it needs someone's ministrations. Since you touched it last (a revert) and your name sounds vaguely Roman, maybe you? 24.28.17.231 ( talk) 05:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the edits by this user? The user replaces existing content of fictional Mafia biographies with content copied from The Godfather Wiki on mass. While it adds additional information, it removes the important context that it is part of a fictional film series. - Cntras ( talk) 11:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there FAVONIAN, VASCO here,
as you have taken action in this "user"'s talkpage in the past, i thought i'd brief you on the following: judging by his list of "contributions" (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.220.233.206), i guess he's doing exactly what the title of my message says (removing the much needed for stability purposes "Fs mid" template in football squads), pityful... Ah, i better brace myself, have found another wikienemy, these people don't like being reported, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do :(
Keep up the good work, from Portugal - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 06:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This was the first post made by 2.124.76.227 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) about 7 hours after the last two-week block you imposed. Help? Fat&Happy ( talk) 02:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted edits removed by another user that were there for quite some time but were removed recently with ill intent, replaced again, then removed by you which I'm sure were good faith edits, however the initial removal was done by someone else on here with ill intent. Confusing, but true. MikeHasIssues ( talk) 19:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
84.227.30.191 restored several of the spam links added by 70.184.105.2. Perhaps you can take a look at it. Cheers. ( Nymf editing logged out) 79.136.126.110 ( talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I bring your attention to User:Hypocaustic's recent edits to passive smoking and second-hand smoke, a month after his move request at the former page failed?
That looks like an attempt to avoid the consensus of only a month ago. (I have reverted the edits, by the way). Cross porpoises ( talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
He seems to have done the same with Smoking ban in England and Smoke-free law (England) too.
Also, he has been guilty of switching from US to UK English in many articles [7], and then reverting users when they try to undo him [8]
Can you tell me how best I should proceed with this? Cross porpoises ( talk) 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England". Thank you. -- Cross porpoises ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip ( talk) 14:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It was renamed and afterwards there were significantly changes in the contents by IP. You might like to take a look. I don't know whether those edits are fine. ༆ ( talk) 08:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream ( talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
... for the page move. Go well. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've changed,I'm positive now, why can't you understand that,move on. 74.163.16.52 ( talk) 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You closed talk:Facundo_Argüello_(tennis) with no comment and 3 to 2 for moving. No extra time given with low turnout. 99% of the time with these conditions it goes to "no consensus to move" yet you move the page? Number of English sources given on the actual page and arguments to keep 7, to move zero. Please reconsider or re-open for more polling. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Kim Sullivan Hughes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Upon consideration, I checked the consensus, and I wonder if the discussion is interpreted correctly. Yes, there were millions of results, but I narrowed down the results, and "Kim Hughes" is used more often. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you blocked this editor for abusing multiple accounts. They have appealed their block on UTRS and claim that they have not done so. Is there any context you can provide that will help me evaluate their request? -- Chris (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Favonian, could you please mark this WP:ANI case ( [9]) for close please? Soviet King Pound me if i messed up. 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Jawadreventon ( talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have recent received a warning that I have vandalized the article "History of coal mining". Apparently, the warning came from you. That said, I am professing my innocence. I DID NOT edit; heck, I didn't even go near that page!
I say again, I DID NOT vandalize the Wikipedia article "History of coal mining"; repeat, I DID NOT vandalize the Wikipedia article "History of coal mining".
I have no doubt, it was someone else who vandalized that article, and upon doing so, deflected the blame at me. Please do not blame me, for I am innocent. When I DO edit a Wikipedia article, I do it as a contribution, NOT to vandalize.
Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.181.29 ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is at Richard I, Duke of Normandy. I'm contacting you since You just visited the page and reverted an edit. The information added to his name, specifically "Richard de Basseville of Normandish"—is this vandalism? I've never seen this name used anywhere before and it's not covered by the source citation #1, Europäische Stammtafeln, vol ii, Tafel 79; which citation probably isn't necessary anyway as it's in the lead. But I'm not sure enough to revert it myself although I did add a tag. Would you take a second look and see what you think this is? Thanks. Bearpatch ( talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Back on 28 March I closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I thought was finished with. You were one of the contributors to the discussion. Another editor later posted a further comment below the closed section, and, having read that comment, I decided that the issue was perhaps not as unambiguously finished as I had thought, so I reverted my closure. Nobody posted any more comments to the section, and it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie_Adams. However, an editor has now suggested that I should have informed those who contributed to the discussion that it had been reopened, so I am doing so. It is very likely that nobody had any more to add, but if you would have done so then I apologise for not informing you at the time. If you do wish to say any more about it then it will be necessary to open a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since the old one is archived. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
you just send me a warning. I think you should read about the whole matter before sending me a warning, just because the other party was the first to send you a complain. I could have complain too. This is not a good way to do things. Thank you for your comprehension sir. Let us all talk about this and solve the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.239.254 ( talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok mr «le crustacé attardé», but I don't think we can say that easely that MIT fails to back a claims. There should be a complete scientific analysis of the matter to determine wether what I did was true or not. This encyclopedia is about equality, so my right to contribute is equal to the right to undo my contribution, which means they don't have more right to undo my contribution than I have the right to make a contribution. We should all have a scientific debate on the matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.239.254 ( talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You sir, have no life. DO you spend your time on wikipedia, editing articles? Do you really think this encyclopedia is that important? There's already Britannica and Encyclopedia Universaliss you know, that are actually written by real experts, not just the common idiot. By the way I saw so many Bullshit on wikipedia that was never edited and actually was defended by your unemployed losers. There's 1000000 more article for us to grief so don't think it's over by locking this one about Oliver. I'm already satisfied that my contribution stood there for hours, meaning many idiots actually red it and most believed it («if it's on wikipedia/TV then it must be true») I will never forget the time were I got a 5/20 in college for my work because most of my information was from wikipedia, and especially from articles that you guys considered prefect and not vandalized (I checked the history and there was never a single edit do to vandalism). So stop taking to seriously this encyclopedia made mostly by unemployed idiots that think that ,because they red 5 website and some newspaper, they are real experts. So anyway, I will probably continue to vandalize from time to time to have a good laugh with my friends, and don't worry, i'm using proxies so banning my ip won't have any effect. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.145.168 ( talk) 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would value your input. Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I was going to extend his block to a month but saw that you'd warned him. I think he got off too easily, that was just insulting to us. Dougweller ( talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Wikipedia does allow the use of multiple accounts so long as they're not used deceptively. My usernames User:Lee_McLoughlin_Leicester and User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 are hardly intended to deceive anyone in to thinking they belong to different persons. They're probably the most transparent usernames on the internet: My name in full followed by my city of birth or my year of birth! This is not an abuse of multiple accounts and so you've abused your position.
As for this edit, it is not in breach of the Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks. I was simply offering a suggestion to someone that contributes nothing to Wikipedia.
It does appear that Favonian is the one in breach of Wikipedia's policies, not me.
Well I'm expecting the birth of my third child any day (grown-up stuff), so I'm going and I'll be back in 6 months to a year. Bye all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.121.180 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Favonian,
I've recently become aware of the discussion about the names of the two Balfour Declaration articles. I've just now posted a proposal to un-do the move of the 1917 one and restore the title "Balfour Declaration of 1917" with a disambiguation page for the two Declarations.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 09:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes i dont know how but forgot to notice , and really apologies for that mistake. Mumbaifreaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbaifreaks ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That they'd call you one, well, that's probably not right though understandable, but me?? Drmies ( talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
12.16.239.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An active individual that probably should be dealt with. -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Typhoonwikihelper switched to this IP Address: 218.103.152.230 ( talk). This new IP sockpuppet needs to be reported to WP:ANI (and be blocked again), because he is refusing to stop, and because he is trying to evade his editing block. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
He's back again... as the IP 219.77.32.65. Are we ever going to be able to stop him? 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Typhoonwikihelper is back again as 203.218.29.93, and this time he even admited it on Jason Rees's talk page. Typhoonwikihelper is also operating out of this IP Address: 203.218.29.116, as evident on Jason Rees's talk page. Unbelievably, this IP is still continuing to vandalize various pages, mostly through the first IP Address I mentioned. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Threat (as seen on Jason Rees's talk page):
Please be noted that if i get too mad i will seriously create a Vandalism-only account 218.103.145.154 ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Threat provided by: 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We seriously have to stop him. I am really starting to get scared by now. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I pattern I noted is that everyday that he is able to aquire a new "sockpuppet," he begins editing around 0500 UTC, which is around 12:00 A.M, Eastern US Time (EST). If he dosen't show up for a while, we may have won. Of course, we can't take that for granted. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have found Typhoonwikihelper's oldest "IP Sockpuppet" yet, 203.218.175.13. Although that IP is currently inactive, along with another old "sock", 203.218.29.116, I am concerned that they may return again, especially since those IPsocks are not blocked. I have expressed my concerns. (PS, Typhoonwikihelper hasn't shown up yet. That could be good news. But as always with vandalists, we have to wait and see.) Sincerely, 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, everybody but i need to say something.... I am Typhoonwikihelper and please read the following:
Thank you for reading the above.
Sincerely, 203.218.28.33 ( talk) 12:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If this guy comes back again, I seriously believe that it is time for a rangeblock. I don't know how much longer we can keep this up. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have located all of Typhooneikihelper's active IPs within the last month, and a few of them even further back. Here is a page I "generated," using the IPs listed on the site. The IP range data could be really useful, especially if this guy does not give up. Also included are some "personal" data about the vandalizer (but you probably already know that). Are there any other ranges this guy is using, besides the range(s) listed on the webpage? 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I've been recently sent a message that I made an edit to the page called 'Legend'. This is part of the message I got: 'Favonian (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)'
I'm telling the truth when I say that I haven't editted this page. I've never seen the page before and I couldn't find out what I had supposedly editted. I was sent a message that my edit had been reverted or removed as it did not appear constructive
I don't have a wikipedia account, so if the pages needed to be signed in to edit, I couldn't have done that. I'm hoping that I have just been wrongly accused and haven't been hacked.
I know this isn't you who sent this, but I also got another message about 'North Bromsgrove High School' that I vandalised the page. I could find out what I had written and it was 'what a big headed fool haha SPJ' after someone's name. The user who sent me that was Mephistophelian. 'Mephtalk 12:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)'
I'm really sorry about the trouble I may have caused, but I really haven't done these edits. Please could you look into it for me? Thank you for taking the time to read this and maybe believe me.
109.157.1.66 ( talk) 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Do something. 2.83.65.9 is vandalizing S.L. Benfica page for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCorruption brigade ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
2.83.65.9's biased post is still there. I guess you don't care about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Truth3r ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. He will change IP address to keep vandalizing SL Benfica page! :)
I see you have given him a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.45.77.82#February_2012
Obviously he hasn't heeded that warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Luxembourg&diff=prev&oldid=479692611
Not to be a rat here, but feel free to block him. He's all yours. Mudkip3DS ( talk) 19:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's one for ya. It is an educational IP, 137.164.227.135 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Made this edit [1] 2 days after receiving their latest level 4 warning.-- Racerx11 ( talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what consensus was reached here and therefore why the page was moved. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see you blocked an IP for inappropriate edit summaries on a variety of boxing articles. Thanks for getting involved. Why did you decide to revert the IP's edits? It seems to be a dispute about formatting and linking.-- Jahalive ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have unprotected Vitali Klitschko - no need for that right now, I think. UkBoxen either uses proxies or IPs geolocated to around 95.141.192.0/20, 188.40.0.0/16, 178.98.0.0/16, 178.105.0.0/16, 31.111.0.0/18, thus it is relatively straightforward to issue a short-term rangeblock (ranges not busy, this tool helps). Regards. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hope you like coffee because I don't!!! Hobblington ( talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
I was recently reprimanded by you regarding a modification of the article on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
The problem is that my addition is entirely correct. Yet you consider it vandalism.
My last modificaton was entirely formal and free from personal opinion. Thus fitting to the guidelines of any Encyclopedia.
Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is related to for example Leopold II of Belgium who was personally responsible for very large genocides in Congo during the 19th century.
Since a few hundred years back, all the royal houses of Europe have submitted to the Pope of Rome, the head of the Vatican City state.
Both the Vatican itself and the Royal houses have successfully used the method of giving an outer false image of charity and good-will, while promoting much more sinister and twisted principles in the silence behind the scenes.
I myself as origially Swedish and you my fellow Dane are victims of the same group of internationalist organization which have been working for hundreds of years to destroy independent nations and their constitutions.
Now it is almost complete and we are supposed to rejoice at "the return of the king", in a new forced multi-cultural Babylonian society under the flag of the UN, where indeed, "big brother sees you".
I urge you to wake up and repent.
Please do not consider this vandalism, it is simply an objective opinion based on many years of experience and research.
Kind regards Kristofer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.180.81 ( talk) 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
==== Unfortunately modern history description is so revised and so mutilated that it´s difficult to find proof for many of the most logical and actual happenings.
I will just quote the following, it´s for you. I hope to set something in motion somewhere
I have legalized robbery, called it belief I have run with the money, I have hid like a thief Re-written history with armies and my crooks Invented memories, I did burn all the books
{Refrain} And I can still hear his laughter And I can still hear his song The man's too big The man's too strong
Matk Knopfler, Dire Straits
Thank you ==== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.180.81 ( talk) 15:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
reading further on old talk page, maybe I should have posted here; anyway, fyi:
Alarbus ( talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! You disambiguated Madrigal to Madrigal (Trecento) at Giovanni Dondi dell'Orologio, and you may well have been right to do so. I'd purposely left it ambiguous because the madrigals in question (and his ballate too) were in a collection of poems, thus unlikely to have been musical settings and probably better considered as Madrigal (poetry). But that article has no mention at all of the 14th century Italian poetic madrigal (most of the other forms we think of as musical, such as the ballata and the frottola, were also poetic forms, btw). It's a bit of a mess, really. Any ideas on how best to sort it out? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
in Father's Day. I have no idea of how I managed to bork the text in that way. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The talk page is locked. The article is locked. How can I discuss? I am writing from Imperial College, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.14.199 ( talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Any disruptive edits from ICL to this particular article are invariably by this banned user. Mathsci ( talk) 01:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Good day Favonian. Could you monitor the IP editting on Loriga, I believe the edit reverts and claims of vandalism are a continuation of the POV editing that occurred in 2007. I will post a request for elaboration on the subject (per 2012) to see if there is any contradictory statements. User:Septrya in 2007, among others, prooved interference from a user in 2007, and the interjections and reverts seem to follow a pattern. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) ( talk) 15:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize, just a new user at wikipedia and I was contributing to the article not vandalizing, all of a sudden it asked me to 'reflist' which I am not familiar with and It ended up deleting every section ( Monkelese ( talk) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 7 March 2012
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:VirtualBox#Spamming allegation. Fleet Command ( talk) 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why not to block for 1.5 to 3 years. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking at ANI a little bit ago, as I sometimes do, my own dim lightbulb came on when I saw yet another complaint about an admin named Fastily... and I realized that I OWE YOU ONE INCREDIBLY HUGE APOLOGY for this rant a couple of weeks ago. [2] Inexplicably, or maybe idiotically, I had the two of you confused, and being annoyed about that one fairly trivial matter, my judgment was disastrously clouded. I suspect that you were saying to yourself all along there, "What did I ever do to him?" The answer is, NOTHING. I was totally in the wrong with that one. I'll eat pretty much any humble pie you want to serve. :( ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Infinitesimal means infinitely small. It makes no sense to say "infinitesimally small". I've undone your undoing of my edit. 109.157.129.2 ( talk) 05:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi F., Your actions to my ip address issue appear to of sorted it, Thanks Mdann52 ( talk) 13:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is your arm getting tired yet from playing Whac-A-Mole with that 92.vandal? You're gonna wear out your mallet! -- Racerx11 ( talk) 15:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
VC has known it was copyvio since October, I've rev/del'd all but the first sentence. Dougweller ( talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I sent this to a website. Will it do?
to wikipedia
This user that u have warned for vandalizing, has created a silly article, Maoamermaoamer. I dont think that hes okay for wikipedia. Thanks! Yash t 101 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Two for and one against, and you close it with the comment "no consensus"? Please enlighten me. Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this needs to be turned back into a redirect - it had been a redirect for years until someone gutted Medes in January and added it to this. The material was restored to Medes. We also have an edit warrior on both claiming it was a Kurdish dynasty. Dougweller ( talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't even remember how I ended up there, but reading one passage got me cross-eyed. It turns out a now-banned editor's sockpuppet had added this change and I think the addition was out of place. I'm tired enough I dare not touch it, but it needs someone's ministrations. Since you touched it last (a revert) and your name sounds vaguely Roman, maybe you? 24.28.17.231 ( talk) 05:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the edits by this user? The user replaces existing content of fictional Mafia biographies with content copied from The Godfather Wiki on mass. While it adds additional information, it removes the important context that it is part of a fictional film series. - Cntras ( talk) 11:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there FAVONIAN, VASCO here,
as you have taken action in this "user"'s talkpage in the past, i thought i'd brief you on the following: judging by his list of "contributions" (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.220.233.206), i guess he's doing exactly what the title of my message says (removing the much needed for stability purposes "Fs mid" template in football squads), pityful... Ah, i better brace myself, have found another wikienemy, these people don't like being reported, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do :(
Keep up the good work, from Portugal - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 06:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This was the first post made by 2.124.76.227 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) about 7 hours after the last two-week block you imposed. Help? Fat&Happy ( talk) 02:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted edits removed by another user that were there for quite some time but were removed recently with ill intent, replaced again, then removed by you which I'm sure were good faith edits, however the initial removal was done by someone else on here with ill intent. Confusing, but true. MikeHasIssues ( talk) 19:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
84.227.30.191 restored several of the spam links added by 70.184.105.2. Perhaps you can take a look at it. Cheers. ( Nymf editing logged out) 79.136.126.110 ( talk) 10:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I bring your attention to User:Hypocaustic's recent edits to passive smoking and second-hand smoke, a month after his move request at the former page failed?
That looks like an attempt to avoid the consensus of only a month ago. (I have reverted the edits, by the way). Cross porpoises ( talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
He seems to have done the same with Smoking ban in England and Smoke-free law (England) too.
Also, he has been guilty of switching from US to UK English in many articles [7], and then reverting users when they try to undo him [8]
Can you tell me how best I should proceed with this? Cross porpoises ( talk) 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England". Thank you. -- Cross porpoises ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip ( talk) 14:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It was renamed and afterwards there were significantly changes in the contents by IP. You might like to take a look. I don't know whether those edits are fine. ༆ ( talk) 08:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream ( talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
... for the page move. Go well. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've changed,I'm positive now, why can't you understand that,move on. 74.163.16.52 ( talk) 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You closed talk:Facundo_Argüello_(tennis) with no comment and 3 to 2 for moving. No extra time given with low turnout. 99% of the time with these conditions it goes to "no consensus to move" yet you move the page? Number of English sources given on the actual page and arguments to keep 7, to move zero. Please reconsider or re-open for more polling. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Kim Sullivan Hughes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Upon consideration, I checked the consensus, and I wonder if the discussion is interpreted correctly. Yes, there were millions of results, but I narrowed down the results, and "Kim Hughes" is used more often. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you blocked this editor for abusing multiple accounts. They have appealed their block on UTRS and claim that they have not done so. Is there any context you can provide that will help me evaluate their request? -- Chris (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Favonian, could you please mark this WP:ANI case ( [9]) for close please? Soviet King Pound me if i messed up. 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Jawadreventon ( talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have recent received a warning that I have vandalized the article "History of coal mining". Apparently, the warning came from you. That said, I am professing my innocence. I DID NOT edit; heck, I didn't even go near that page!
I say again, I DID NOT vandalize the Wikipedia article "History of coal mining"; repeat, I DID NOT vandalize the Wikipedia article "History of coal mining".
I have no doubt, it was someone else who vandalized that article, and upon doing so, deflected the blame at me. Please do not blame me, for I am innocent. When I DO edit a Wikipedia article, I do it as a contribution, NOT to vandalize.
Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.181.29 ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is at Richard I, Duke of Normandy. I'm contacting you since You just visited the page and reverted an edit. The information added to his name, specifically "Richard de Basseville of Normandish"—is this vandalism? I've never seen this name used anywhere before and it's not covered by the source citation #1, Europäische Stammtafeln, vol ii, Tafel 79; which citation probably isn't necessary anyway as it's in the lead. But I'm not sure enough to revert it myself although I did add a tag. Would you take a second look and see what you think this is? Thanks. Bearpatch ( talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Back on 28 March I closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I thought was finished with. You were one of the contributors to the discussion. Another editor later posted a further comment below the closed section, and, having read that comment, I decided that the issue was perhaps not as unambiguously finished as I had thought, so I reverted my closure. Nobody posted any more comments to the section, and it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie_Adams. However, an editor has now suggested that I should have informed those who contributed to the discussion that it had been reopened, so I am doing so. It is very likely that nobody had any more to add, but if you would have done so then I apologise for not informing you at the time. If you do wish to say any more about it then it will be necessary to open a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since the old one is archived. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
you just send me a warning. I think you should read about the whole matter before sending me a warning, just because the other party was the first to send you a complain. I could have complain too. This is not a good way to do things. Thank you for your comprehension sir. Let us all talk about this and solve the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.239.254 ( talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok mr «le crustacé attardé», but I don't think we can say that easely that MIT fails to back a claims. There should be a complete scientific analysis of the matter to determine wether what I did was true or not. This encyclopedia is about equality, so my right to contribute is equal to the right to undo my contribution, which means they don't have more right to undo my contribution than I have the right to make a contribution. We should all have a scientific debate on the matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.239.254 ( talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You sir, have no life. DO you spend your time on wikipedia, editing articles? Do you really think this encyclopedia is that important? There's already Britannica and Encyclopedia Universaliss you know, that are actually written by real experts, not just the common idiot. By the way I saw so many Bullshit on wikipedia that was never edited and actually was defended by your unemployed losers. There's 1000000 more article for us to grief so don't think it's over by locking this one about Oliver. I'm already satisfied that my contribution stood there for hours, meaning many idiots actually red it and most believed it («if it's on wikipedia/TV then it must be true») I will never forget the time were I got a 5/20 in college for my work because most of my information was from wikipedia, and especially from articles that you guys considered prefect and not vandalized (I checked the history and there was never a single edit do to vandalism). So stop taking to seriously this encyclopedia made mostly by unemployed idiots that think that ,because they red 5 website and some newspaper, they are real experts. So anyway, I will probably continue to vandalize from time to time to have a good laugh with my friends, and don't worry, i'm using proxies so banning my ip won't have any effect. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.145.168 ( talk) 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would value your input. Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I was going to extend his block to a month but saw that you'd warned him. I think he got off too easily, that was just insulting to us. Dougweller ( talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Wikipedia does allow the use of multiple accounts so long as they're not used deceptively. My usernames User:Lee_McLoughlin_Leicester and User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 are hardly intended to deceive anyone in to thinking they belong to different persons. They're probably the most transparent usernames on the internet: My name in full followed by my city of birth or my year of birth! This is not an abuse of multiple accounts and so you've abused your position.
As for this edit, it is not in breach of the Wikipedia guidelines on personal attacks. I was simply offering a suggestion to someone that contributes nothing to Wikipedia.
It does appear that Favonian is the one in breach of Wikipedia's policies, not me.
Well I'm expecting the birth of my third child any day (grown-up stuff), so I'm going and I'll be back in 6 months to a year. Bye all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.121.180 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Favonian,
I've recently become aware of the discussion about the names of the two Balfour Declaration articles. I've just now posted a proposal to un-do the move of the 1917 one and restore the title "Balfour Declaration of 1917" with a disambiguation page for the two Declarations.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 09:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes i dont know how but forgot to notice , and really apologies for that mistake. Mumbaifreaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbaifreaks ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That they'd call you one, well, that's probably not right though understandable, but me?? Drmies ( talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
12.16.239.2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An active individual that probably should be dealt with. -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Typhoonwikihelper switched to this IP Address: 218.103.152.230 ( talk). This new IP sockpuppet needs to be reported to WP:ANI (and be blocked again), because he is refusing to stop, and because he is trying to evade his editing block. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
He's back again... as the IP 219.77.32.65. Are we ever going to be able to stop him? 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Typhoonwikihelper is back again as 203.218.29.93, and this time he even admited it on Jason Rees's talk page. Typhoonwikihelper is also operating out of this IP Address: 203.218.29.116, as evident on Jason Rees's talk page. Unbelievably, this IP is still continuing to vandalize various pages, mostly through the first IP Address I mentioned. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Threat (as seen on Jason Rees's talk page):
Please be noted that if i get too mad i will seriously create a Vandalism-only account 218.103.145.154 ( talk) 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Threat provided by: 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We seriously have to stop him. I am really starting to get scared by now. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I pattern I noted is that everyday that he is able to aquire a new "sockpuppet," he begins editing around 0500 UTC, which is around 12:00 A.M, Eastern US Time (EST). If he dosen't show up for a while, we may have won. Of course, we can't take that for granted. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have found Typhoonwikihelper's oldest "IP Sockpuppet" yet, 203.218.175.13. Although that IP is currently inactive, along with another old "sock", 203.218.29.116, I am concerned that they may return again, especially since those IPsocks are not blocked. I have expressed my concerns. (PS, Typhoonwikihelper hasn't shown up yet. That could be good news. But as always with vandalists, we have to wait and see.) Sincerely, 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, everybody but i need to say something.... I am Typhoonwikihelper and please read the following:
Thank you for reading the above.
Sincerely, 203.218.28.33 ( talk) 12:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If this guy comes back again, I seriously believe that it is time for a rangeblock. I don't know how much longer we can keep this up. 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have located all of Typhooneikihelper's active IPs within the last month, and a few of them even further back. Here is a page I "generated," using the IPs listed on the site. The IP range data could be really useful, especially if this guy does not give up. Also included are some "personal" data about the vandalizer (but you probably already know that). Are there any other ranges this guy is using, besides the range(s) listed on the webpage? 72.197.249.141 ( talk) 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)